1 2025:CGHC:38782 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1843 of 2020 Mohan S/o Jethu Gond, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Village Shyampur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Shankar Yadav S/o Satram, Aged About 48 Years ,Cast - Thethwar, R/o Village Shyampur, Police Station And Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 2 - The Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Addl. Collector Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Aman Ansari, Advocate For State/Respondents No.2 to 4 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, P.L. Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal Order On Board 05.08.2025 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner/Non-applicant-Mohan questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-1), passed by Board of Revenue, Bilaspur in Case ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Digitally signed by ARPAN SRIVASTAVA Date: 2025.08.05 18:33:40 +0530 2 No.RN/15/R/A-70/244/2019, whereby, the revision preferred by him has been dismissed holding it to be barred by time while affirming the order dated 26/08/2019 passed by the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg in Case No.341/A-70/2016-17. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that an application (Annexure R- 1/6) was made by the Respondent No.1/applicant-Shankar Yadav before the Court of Tehsildar, Chhuikhadan of District Rajnandgaon as per the provision prescribed under Section 250 of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code, 1959’), alleging therein, that he is the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.58 ad-measuring 0.20 acre situated at village Shyampur, Tehsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon, but was in apprehension that the non-applicant/petitioner has encroached some portion of his land, therefore, he moved an application before the Tahsildar seeking demarcation of his land and, the concerned Revenue Authority vide its order dated 18.11.2014 has demarcated the alleged land wherein, 0.10 acre of the land held by the Respondent No.1 was found to be encroached by the petitioner/non-applicant-Mohan and accordingly, the said authority has directed for the removal of the alleged encroachment while allowing the said application filed under Section 250 of the Code, 1959 vide order dated 21.03.2016, in Revenue Case No.8-A/70/2014-15. 3. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue) Khairagarah, who, in-turn, vide its order dated 03.09.2016 (Annexure P/5) passed in Appeal Case No.49-A/70/2015-16 has dismissed the same and, it 3 appears further that, being aggrieved with the said order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant before the Commissioner on 17.07.2017. Since the appeal, so preferred, was beyond the prescribed period of limiation, therefore, an application was made by him under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 submitting therein, that he came to know about the said order, as passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) only on 23.06.2017, as such, it is within time from the date of the knowledge of the said order. 4. Although, it was stated by the petitioner that he came to know about the pronouncement of the said of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) on 23.06.2017, but it, however, appears from perusal of the record that his counsel namely-Sandeep Chandel had applied for obtaining the certified copy of the said order dated 03.09.2016 passed by Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), on 07.09.2016 and in pursuance thereof, itwas delivered to him on 28.09.2016. It, thus, appears that the petitioner/non-applicant was very well aware on 07.09.2016 that the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has passed the order on 03.09.2016 when he applied for obtaining the certified copy of the same and, even on 28.09.2016, when the certified copy of the said order, was provided to his said counsel, namely, Sandeep Chandel. 5. It is to be seen further that in his application filed under Section 5 of the Act, 1963, it has not been stated by the petitioner/non-applicant that the counsel of him has not provided the copy of the same, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner/non-applicant was not aware regarding the passing of the said order dated 03.09.2016 passed by Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue), or came to know only on 23.06.2017, 4 as alleged by him, and, instead, he was found to be aware on 07.09.2016. In view thereof, the Commissioner, Durg Division, Durg has not committed any illegality in dismissing his appeal preferred against the said order dated 03.09.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), holding it to be barred by time and the Board of Revenue vide its order impugned dated 21.01.2020 (Annexure P-1) in Case No.RN/15/R/A-70/244/2019 has not committed any illegality in affirming the same, so as to call for any interference in this petition. 6. The petition, being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost(s). Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE Arpan